Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Amrit Puri vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 September, 2023

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:29223]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11450/2020

Amrit Puri S/o Late Shri Shankar Puri, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Mukam Post Farara Via Kankroli, Tehsil And District Rajsamand.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Dist. Collector, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

3. Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)               :    Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi
For Respondent(s)               :    Mr. R.D. Bhadu



                   HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                          Order

12/09/2023

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

Amrit Puri under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the

following prayers:-

"i. the impugned order dated 10.05.2018 (Anx-P/3) may kindly be quashed as if the same was never issued; ii. the impugned order dated 14.09.2020 (Anx-P/5) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

iii. the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to issue license to the petitioner.

iv. any other appropriate relief(s), which this Hon'ble High Court deems just and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.

v. writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."

[2023:RJ-JD:29223] (2 of 5) [CW-11450/2020]

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the late father of the

petitioner was having Arms License bearing No.28/1995 and his

gun N.P.32 Bore Revolver No.23 Jonson Arms & Cycle Works USA,

was transferred in the name of petitioner after the death of his

father and the license of the said revolver was submitted before

the respondents for renewal on 20.12.2016 for a period

commencing from 01.01.2017 till 31.12.2019.

3. After submitting gun license well within time, the

Superintendent of Police submitted a report dated 12.01.2017

stating therein, that 3 cases were registered against the petitioner

which are shown hereunder:-

Case No. Offence(s) u/S Charge-sheet filed on 251/2003 147, 341, 323 and 17.06.2003 (convicted) 149 IPC 332/2009 341 and 323 IPC 23.07.2009 (settlement) 299/2016 147, 341, 323 and 19.11.2016 (under trial) 149 IPC

Thus, a negative recommendation was made against the

petitioner. Upon such recommendation, license of the petitioner

was suspended vide order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Office

of District Magistrate, Rajsamand, till final disposal of the pending

case.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order

dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Office of District Magistrate,

Rajsamand, which was decided on 03.10.2017 (Annexure-P/2)

passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, setting aside the

order dated 28.02.2017 and the matter was remanded back to the

District Magistrate, Rajsamand while directing the District

Magistrate to provide an opportunity of hearing to the

appellant/petitioner.

[2023:RJ-JD:29223] (3 of 5) [CW-11450/2020]

5. The matter was again heard by the District Magistrate and

accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply where he pleaded

not guilty and after hearing the matter, the District Magistrate,

Rajsamand, vide its order dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure-P/3)

cancelled the Arms License of the petitioner and the matter was

kept pending till the disposal of the charge-sheet filed against the

petitioner.

6. Thereafter, an appeal in the court of Divisional Commissioner

against the order dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure-P/3) came to be

filed, which was dismissed on 14.09.2020 (Annexure-P/5) and the

order dated 10.05.2018 was affirmed.

7. Being aggrieved of the order dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure-P/

3) and the order dated 14.09.2020 (Annexure-P/5), the present

writ petition has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel

representing the respondents, jointly submit that the issue

involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment

dated 18.01.2005, passed by this Court in the case of Khem

Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2005) 2 CriLR 907.

Relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:-

"4. In order to appreciate the contentions, it would be appropriate to extract material portion of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 relevant for our purpose as follows:" (1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence-holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time was may be specified in the notice.

(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence

[2023:RJ-JD:29223] (4 of 5) [CW-11450/2020]

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence, or (5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub- section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement."

5. From the reading of the provision it is manifest that the licensing authority may revoke a licence if it deem necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. The power of suspension of Arms licence is necessary concomitant of power of revocation for effective control and regulation as also for the security of the public peace or public safety. Such a power has to be exercised with great circumspection. The satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the licence holder is not sufficient for cancelling the licence. A licence can be revoked us. 17(3)(b) if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. In absence of any finding that cancellation was necessary for public peace of public safety, such an order is liable to be quashed.

6. In the instant case the impugned order suffers from all these defects. Theimpugned order of the District Magistrate does not indicate as to how thecancellation of the Arms licence in favour of the appellant was necessary for security of the public peace.

7. Consequently, the special appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.7.2003 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated 23.2.2001 and the order of the appellate authority dated 1.4.2003 are quashed and set aside. It would be openfor the District Magistrate to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law."

[2023:RJ-JD:29223] (5 of 5) [CW-11450/2020]

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

10. In view of the aforesaid submissions made and looking to the

fact that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment

dated 18.01.2005 Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

(supra), the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated

10.05.2018 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the Office of District

Magistrate, Rajsamand, Rajasthan and 14.09.2020

(Annexure-P/5) passed by the Court of Divisional Commissioner,

Udaipur, are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. It would be

open for the District Magistrate, Rajsamand, to pass a fresh order

after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, strictly in

accordance with law. Stay application as well as all other pending

applications, if any, also stand disposed of.